Rev 14:9-11 literal or not?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
This thread pertains to whether passages in Revelation are literal. So there is some relevance to the discussion, is there not, when the writer says "these words are trustworthy and true"? - Why say that if the book was only intended as metaphor?

Why say that if the book was only intended as metaphor?

Are you asking me why some church operatives - working for the fledgling church - would use allegories and metaphors in order to create something scary and inscrutable that only their theologians would then be able to wield authoritatively?

@suzianne said

I think continued speculation as to whether the author knew his writings were allegorical or experienced in the way he says they were (indeed, after proclaiming their truth) is extremely self-serving for the speculators when they claim that the events they saw were pointedly not true and that the authors had to be lying about what they experienced. But as we've already seen in these forums, such behavior is common, especially when it counters something they think they know to be "true".

What a pity it is that all you have to offer this benign and in-good-faith discussion is some of your own speculations and insinuations about the personality defects of others.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
"we can really say" about him - As though I was giving complete validity, when I actually said '"all we can really say about him" was how he identified himself in the text, namely that his name was John and came from Patmos. - Which John? No idea. Almost certainly not the 2 Johns he's been linked to over the centuries. More than one writer? Who knows.

Which John? No idea. Almost certainly not the 2 Johns he's been linked to over the centuries. More than one writer? Who knows.

You admit you have "no idea" who wrote the text. But it's definitely literally true - or you actually believe it literally thinks it is true - because the text says it about itself? Is that how it works?

@fmf said
So you believe that it is literally true because that is what the text says?

Is it literally true that the writer identified himself as John from Patmos.

@fmf said
Do you actually think the writer saying, about his own writing, that "these words are trustworthy and true", and saying it IN that piece of writing he's talking about, is evidence of something?

What are you wittering on about? Why are you talking about evidence?

I am determining if the writer intended the book to be understood as literal or not. Him saying "the words are trustworthy and true" is clearly relevant to that. - For Christians to know if a passage is to be taken literally or metaphorically it is important to know what the writer intended.

@fmf said
Which John? No idea. Almost certainly not the 2 Johns he's been linked to over the centuries. More than one writer? Who knows.

You admit you have "no idea" who wrote the text. But it's definitely literally true - or you actually believe it literally thinks it is true - because the text says it about itself? Is that how it works?

Seriously, have you fallen out of bed this morning and banged your head? Your post is genuinely idiotic.

I'm an atheist. Why are you asking or implying that I think anything in the bible is literally true? - All we can say about the writer is that he identifies as John from Patmos. That is a factual statement. Anything else about the writer is speculation. (Including your own claim there were multiple writers).

I do not believe the text is literally true. I am only interested if the writer (whoever that was) believed what he was writing was literally true OR if he wanted others to believe so (for a variety of possible reasons, including the one you raised about creating fear or obedience etc). - None of this is rocket science. Why are you struggling to get your head around it?!

Edit: If you genuinely can't get your head around this post then please don't respond to it. Your posts in this thread have been tedious and no fun to reply to.

-Removed-

What's your hang up divejester? Is the light too bright for you?

It, the verses you referenced, literally means that anyone that worships the beast and receives his mark is doomed forever.
No redemption for them. It's too late. There's no going back. They suffer "everlasting punishment."

And if you can't handle the literal truth of that, then too bad for you.

@moonbus said
As with the quatrains of Nostradamus, one can find some current event or other which can be made to fit the ‘prophecy’.

I would agree, I’m just highlighting a potential candidate.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I am determining if the writer intended the book to be understood as literal or not. Him saying "the words are trustworthy and true" is clearly relevant to that.

Given the manipulative nature of Revelations, it's no wonder the writer or writers wanted the metaphorical mumbo jumbo to be perceived as literally true. And, oh look, they declared their words to be "trustworthy and true", too. There, in the text.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
If you genuinely can't get your head around this post then please don't respond to it. Your posts in this thread have been tedious and no fun to reply to.

Feel free to bow out.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Seriously, have you fallen out of bed this morning and banged your head? Your post is genuinely idiotic.

This is not your strongest debating point thus far.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I'm an atheist. Why are you asking or implying that I think anything in the bible is literally true?

I think there is plenty in the Bible that is literally true. But I don’t think it's literally true that the ecclesiastical operatives who concocted Revelation thought they were doing anything other than employing metaphors and allegories in order to put the fear of Christ, so to speak, in people they were seeking to exert their church's authority over.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I am only interested if the writer (whoever that was) believed what he was writing was literally true OR if he wanted others to believe so (for a variety of possible reasons, including the one you raised about creating fear or obedience etc).

If he intended to stir belief/fear by deliberately claiming that the metaphors he'd created were literally true, then they were metaphors.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
None of this is rocket science. Why are you struggling to get your head around it?!

Another weak debating point.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
All we can say about the writer is that he identifies as John from Patmos. That is a factual statement.

This doesn't mean that John of Patmos wrote it or, indeed, that John of Patmos even existed.

Given that you accept this, and that you have, by your own admission "no idea" who he was, and given that you - like me - give no credence to a text of this kind declaring itself to be "true" - then, given the metaphorical, allegorical, apocalyptic, hallucinogenic mumbo jumbo that the book contains, what is your reason for believing that whoever wrote it did so in good faith or in a way that was a "trustworthy" treatise on what was or is "literally true"?